USA Today fashions itself as the newspaper of the average American, and it may well be true. Especially since its redesign, it contains less substance than a single section of the New York Times, pedestrian writing, and mostly bite-size features designed for an audience with an attention span that finds fortune cookies challenging. Every now and then, however, a bit like Family Feud, USA Today’s proud low brow style yields valuable insight. Yesterday’s feature on abortion was such an instance, as the paper gathered reader comments on its Facebook and Twitter locales for America’s opinion regarding Missouri’s new mandated three-day waiting period for women seeking an abortion.
Now that I have reviewed the responses, it all makes sense to me now, and I think I know where we are headed. Oh, there is no valuable insight regarding the measure or abortion among the comments. What is revealing is that among all the responses chosen by USA Today, not single reader could manage sufficient objectivity and critical thinking to produce well-reasoned, fair, thoughtful insight regarding a public policy issue that demands measuring and balancing interests, values, and outcomes, the essence of ethical decision-making. Not one.
Here they are, with my comments in bold:
- I think it’s a great idea. Doesn’t force a no, but ensures good consideration is given to a decision fraught with pressure—@carries_k
This was, hands down, the best of the comments and it is wrong: three days doesn’t ensure a good decision at all.
- This has to be the dumbest law. Can they strip a person’s rights any more than this? This is still America, right?— @MrChefGuru
Well, yes, I think eliminating access to abortion would constitute stripping rights more than a brief waiting period does, for example. This sounds like a Nancy Pelosi fan. Actually, it sounds like Nancy Pelosi….
- I don’t get it. When a mother kills her son, it is murder, but when she aborts, it is legal. Is America confused— @HARNU06
Yes, that’s because abortion isn’t murder, as the law and the Supreme Court defines it, there being a rather vital distinction between killing someone outside one’s body and removing something inside that is attached to it.
- A three-day wait period is horrendous. Access to medical treatment should be equal and given fairly, not with judgment.— @hnweatherford
True, no one wants judgement associated with medical decisions, just rush into them with no thought at all, I say. There is nothing “unequal” about the law (men have to wait three days before they can get abortions too), nor is there anything unfair that I can see. Horrendous? Since the waiting period doesn’t apply in cases of medical emergency, what’s horrendous about it? Nor is any access being denied, just delayed for an arguably valid societal purpose.
- The three-day wait period insults women who have already done ”soul-searching” before going to an abortion clinic. It is designed simply to demean and shame women.— Doug Larson
The delay isn’t designed for the women who have done the soul-searching, they are intended to protect the women who have been pressured, panicked, or rushed into decision with significant life consequences and cannot be reversed. Does the mandatory waiting period on gun purchasing—also a Constitutional right—shame gun buyers? Do mandated “cooling off periods” allowing consumers to change their minds about major purchases shame them, or protect them? I think these laws are aimed at supporting the interests of something other than just demeaning the mothers here, Doug…can you guess what that might be?
- Is it really too much to ask to have the mother wait an extra 48 hours before she kills her child?— Rick Andersen
Well, if society believed she was killing her child, I think we would all agree that 48 hours is too short. The question is, as current law and public consensus holds, whether it is unreasonable to require 48 hours before a woman is allowed to exercise her dominion over her own body and an organism lacking rights within it.
- The majority of those opposing abortion are also the same ones who demonize single mothers and want to deny those mothers or fathers public assistance or any form of help.
An unsubstantiated claim, irrelevant, and an ad hominem attack: who advocates a law is irrelevant to whether it is wise.
- The cost of supporting the poor, single parents and overall those in need outweigh the financial burden of legalized and safe abortions.— Jacob Smyth
So its cheaper to just kill the kids in the womb rather than let them be born to mothers who decide they want them. Got it.
- Attempting to save babies from abortions that are used primarily as a birth control measure is most definitely not a religious thing. It’s a human thing.— Lee Luckabaugh
When someone’s objection to abortion is phrased as following God’s law, and based on the fact that a region holds that a child is a being from the moment of conception, that’s a religious thing.
- Regardless of your personal opinion, unless a medical panel of professionals brings proof that aborting a clump of cells is murder, then the decision to abort a pregnancy lies with all those involved, not politicians who know nothing about a private citizen’s situation. This conservative attack on individual freedom of choice is appalling.— Jason Lewis
Society’s decisions on all important controversies are based on informed and rational personal opinions, and there are no medical experts or any other kinds of experts who can decide when society should accord legal rights to a potential human being. Current abortion law also permits aborting a lot more than a clump of cells—this is called defining away the question.
- If people don’t want to have a baby, then they shouldn’t have sex. Abortion is murder. People say that it’s their bodies and that they have a right to do with it as they please. That unborn baby is not their body. That baby has a right to live.— Brenda Farrar
1. Cotton Mather, is that you? 2. The law of the land says otherwise. 3. So a pregnancy automatically places a woman’s body under the control of the state? 4. The mother’s life matters too. 5. Absolute statements don’t eliminate the requirement of considering consequences.
- Requiring a three-day waiting period is nothing more than harassment.— Dean Hewitt
Are all waiting periods “nothing but” harassment? If not, why is this one? If, say, 10% of women changed their minds about having an abortion after waiting three days, would that be a bad thing, Dean? Why?
I have no doubts that this represents the upper echelon of public thought on this issue, and on other difficult issues as well. Among these commenters are probably business owners, teachers and perhaps even elected officials. They have been conditioned by the media, pundits, radio hosts and politicians to approach a complex question and reduce it to a couple of homogenized thoughts biased by pre-existing assumptions and preferences. Once having arrived at an “answer” that is based on careless distortion of the question influenced by partisan loyalties, they must advocate it far more passionately and with more certitude than its pedigree deserves, and consider no other views respectable or legitimate.
Knowing this is how we arrive at our positions, having neither the time nor the skills to do better, politicians and leaders pitch their policies, proposals and arguments to these limited sensibilities, and by doing so, not only validate them but perpetuate them. Public discourse is crippled. The chances of laws and policies emerging that are rooted in serious, careful, balanced analysis rather than ideological. emotional fervor shrink to the improbable.
Journalists, for the most part, are incapable of significantly more sophisticated analysis than members of the public. The headline on the collection of opinions above in USA Today was “Tighter Requirements Insult, Shame Women.” A waiting period, whatever its virtues or deficits, is not a “tighter” requirement; the criteria for qualifying for a legal abortion are unchanged. What’s the insult? Consumer advocates fight for similar waiting periods—are they trying to insult their constituency? Who picked that headline? Clearly, it is someone about as astute as the commenters whose statements the headline supposedly encompasses.
Worst of all is this unavoidable conclusion: a public this unskilled at critical thought and ethical analysis is unlikely to elect leaders who are any more skillful at either.
Thank you, USA Today. This was illuminating.
And depressing.
Ethics Alarms 
Why do you think that this statement is false? Was the notion that pro-lifers are only pro-birth, that they do not care about children once they are born, ever refuted?
I can give you a million notions that have never been refuted, each more ridiculous than the one before. The issue is whether such a notion has ever been shown to have any validity, especially the “majority” part.
I am sure these represent the upper end, there were probably thousands more laced with profanity and insults like that woman who attacked the pro-life protestors, knocking over signs and screaming “no uterus, no right to talk about it!”
Yes, these were probably the best.
I would find a 3 day waiting period insulting because it assumes that I hadn’t already thought about it for 3 days. While I have never had an abortion, I know that this is an agonizing decision for the vast majority of women. For those who have decided to do it, waiting 72 hours does makes this misery even worse.
The only reason to have this requirement is to hope women change their minds. Waiting periods for guns is quite different — that is for a background check to be made, not to hope that the purchaser changes his/her mind.
What sense does that make? All legal requirements affect both those who are responsible and those who are not. The laws are intended for those who are not. Should I be insulted that I am made to submit to screening at an airport? I know its not for me. It’s for someone who needs to be screened. If you have thought everything through, you know the delay isn’t designed for you, either. You know that there are women who are hectored into abortions—have you read the recent articles about how abortions should be encouraged, the more the better? A poor women being pressured, with an IQ of 98…might not a mandated cooling off period be helpful? Your offense is manufactured—you know better.
Jack. the law assumes that the fetus is not a person. You discussed that at length above. Thus, the waiting period legally only affects the woman having the abortion — there is no greater benefit to public health. TSA screenings are annoying (I hate those people) but they are being done (allegedly) for the public good. The abortion waiting period is big brother at its worst because it is asking individual women to question second-guess decisions that are completely within their control.
This is a mindset I just can’t get around. The unborn exists in one of two states depending on the whims of the mother. If they’re wanted, they’re babies! And if someone were to punch a mother in the womb and killed her unborn, that’s murder. But if they aren’t wanted, they’re fetuses, and there shouldn’t be any qualms about killing them. In fact, there’s people suggesting that if your two year old isn’t wanted, you should be able to have a post-birth abortion. Pretending that this discussion is about the viability of the child is a red herring, it’s about the whims of women who want to kill the unborn based on convenience because the choices that they (and the father) made previously were bad.
agreed
Fair comments. However, you also may have the scared 16 year old who is frightened and maybe has not thought it through. Or, someone who does not know the risks associated with the procedure (or who does not even know that there are risks). Or, the person who does not know what exactly is involved in the procedure. Or, the person who has not really thought about (or who knew about) alternatives to the procedure.
Honestly, Beth, as educated as you claim to be, have you not yet realized that laws and policies seem to cater to the lowest common denominator?
😛
90% of the warning labels you see on products are not meant for you and me; they are meant for the idiot who might not have contemplated the possibility that, when one tips over a vending machine, it may crush you to death (Okay, maybe I did need that one).
You may be smart enough not to need three days; that means the law isn’t there to inconvenience you, while the Great Unwashed fumble along as they try to find their way through the world (as their epic struggle is chronicled on the pages of USA Today on a daily basis).
-Jut
YES! Warning labels! A perfect example! How DARE you think I’m so stupid that I’d eat that little plastic thing on my pill container?
Well, to be fair, I AM sometimes too stupid to open a child-proof lid on a pill bottle. Luckily, I have a 5 year-old who can help me with that.
Fair comments. However, you also may have the scared 16 year old who is frightened and maybe has not thought it through. Or, someone who does not know the risks associated with the procedure (or who does not even know that there are risks). Or, the person who does not know what exactly is involved in the procedure. Or, the person who has not really thought about (or who knew about) alternatives to the procedure.
But can’t you say that for any medical procedure? Let’s impose a waiting period for every non-emergency medical procedure, just to make sure people have reaallly thought about it. You have to schedule an abortion, you normally can’t just waltz in and ask for a same day procedure. Why single out abortion for a waiting period more than any other medical procedure except to stigmatize it? Why assume that a woman has not already thought about it? It is infantilizing in the extreme.
Unlike warning labels, which are passive, the law requires the woman to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, consult with a doctor in person, then either travel back and forth to fulfill the three day waiting period, or get a hotel room for the three days, missing work and family activities the whole time. The reason why many women opt for an abortion in the first place is that they are already living on the edge, and cannot afford another child. This waiting period puts an abortion out of the financial reach of many women (some, more cynical than I, might even posit that would be the real reason for the waiting period). This adds a definitive burden to every woman seeking an abortion, with little qualitative benefit.
The word you are searching for is “ADOPTION.”
If only pregnancy itself was a walk in the park…and wasn’t hugely expensive in and of itself.
Well, you know, there are ways to avoid that, I hear, other than getting pregnant first and seeking an abortion.
Abortions are paid for more completely than at any time in history—now we are saying that any inconvenience is intolerable? Except in cases of rape, women share some responsibility for their dilemma. When I screw up, I have to endure some unpleasant consequences. There is no right to be shielded from all consequences of bad choices.
There is no right to be shielded from the consequences of bad choices, but then there is putting artificial consequences to make the burden even higher than it would otherwise be. A hotel room for three days costs more than a standard first trimester abortion. I think the consequence for an abortion is the abortion, and the expense and pain that comes along with it.
Missouri did not opt for the Medicaid expansion, so long-term birth control is out of the financial reach of many of the poorest women there. If Missouri was serious about truly reducing the amount of the abortions, that is one of the first places to start. But I would guess there is a huge overlap in the people who oppose abortion, and people who oppose birth control (in all forms) or effective birth control (like the IUD and the Pill), also falsely believing that they are abortificiaents.
“artificial consequences”
Like a HUMAN life?
“Why assume that a woman has not already thought about it? It is infantilizing in the extreme.”
That is one way to interpret it. The other way is to make sure that the patient makes an informed decision and, in such a serious matter, an informed decision may take time.
You could make the same statement about “second opinions.” (By the way, did “second opinions” start in the medical field?)
“How dare you suggest I get a second opinion about my pancreatic cancer diagnosis. I wants my chemo and I wants it now!”
“What do you mean I have to wait 2 days before you assist me in my suicide. I am busy Tuesday! Let’s do it now!”
Sterilizations at a certain age (especially when one has no children) are often delayed to make sure the person has a firm grasp of the consequences of a decision.
Same thing with gender re-assignment surgery. From my understanding, there is a lot of psychological profiling that is done before such surgery will be cleared.
Yes, it is all about infantilizing people.
-Jut
Also vasectomies. I know two friends who has the procedure impulsively, under pressure, and now regret it. Would a waiting period have mattered? Who knows?
Ah, ok. You believe it is the state’s responsibility to save adults from regret for the decisions that they have made? Fair enough.
You make the same mistake advocates on both sides make. No, they are trying to maximize the options for life of a helpless gestating human being no different from you or I at a similar stage. Saving regret is a nice, and not insubstantial side benefit. If either side trivializes the legitimate concerns of the other in this (and other issues), the issue can be simplified to the obvious. If a potential life has no value, sure, why wait? If you screw up? Who cares? Have another one! Abort that one! Life is…wait…undifferentiated cells are cheap!
No, its interesting. You seem to want to supply the same waiting period to vasectomies (and presumably tube-tying) as well, when there is no potential life (clump of cells ) involved. Where does that train stop?
No, I didn’t advocate it at all. I’m just saying that one could be beneficial. I think the balance should always favor the side of the citizen’s autonomy. In the case of abortion, there’s another interest involved, deny it as you may.
“there’s another interest involved, deny it as you may”
The root source of the pro-abortion crowd’s fallacy.
[snort]
First, this legislation is not just for adults. Minors are allowed to have abortions without their parents’ permission or even knowledge. Minors are very susceptible to pressure and intimidation.
As far as adults, I know of someone who was pressured by her boyfriend into having an abortion immediately. He put emotional pressure on her and drove her to an abortion clinic. She and the boyfriend gave conflicting answers to the date of conception, so the clinic declined the abortion (she was at 6 months). She would have seriously regretted the decision. Should she have been an adult and told him ‘no’? Sure, but look at the Ray Rice thing. As far as your argument goes, maybe he shouldn’t be prosecuted because she doesn’t want charges filed.
As for the “people have to drive hundreds of miles” argument. I think that is garbage. Yes, you may have to drive hundreds of miles to a dedicated “we only provide abortions” clinic staffed by an out-of-state doctor with no admitting privileges, but local doctors will provide abortions for their patients. If you are an out-of-state news agency and you call and ask “Do you perform abortions?”, they will tell you “No!”, but they do for their patients. Abortion and D&C are coded the same on the insurance and procedure forms. Only the doctor and the patient know which one was performed. I live in a redder than red state and doctors here perform abortions but they aren’t going to tell you or the press about it because its none of your business.
Minors in Missouri need parental permission or judicial bypass to obtain an abortion. This means that not only the minor, but several other someones have thought about the issue, before they have even made the appointment.
Keep in mind this legislation requires someone to make an appointment, meet with a doctor, in person, get a lecture about alternatives to abortion, then come back three days later for the actual abortion. Also, keep in mind that Missouri already had a 24 waiting period, but I guess the legislature thought a woman needed even more time to think about it? If three days, why not a week, or a month? Some states’ three day waiting periods already don’t include weekends or holidays, so in effect, it could almost as long as a week.
As for the “people have to drive hundreds of miles” argument. I think that is garbage. Yes, you may have to drive hundreds of miles to a dedicated “we only provide abortions” clinic staffed by an out-of-state doctor with no admitting privileges, but local doctors will provide abortions for their patients. If you are an out-of-state news agency and you call and ask “Do you perform abortions?”, they will tell you “No!”, but they do for their patients. Abortion and D&C are coded the same on the insurance and procedure forms. Only the doctor and the patient know which one was performed. I live in a redder than red state and doctors here perform abortions but they aren’t going to tell you or the press about it because its none of your business.
Most (but not all) surgical abortions are D&Cs, though not all D&C are abortions, so yes, the coding would be the same. But you have hit upon one of my earlier points. This law has little practical effect on middle-class women, who already have dedicated doctors who will perform abortions in their own offices, or can simply fly out to another state with less restrictive laws, but for poor women, who lack insurance, or a doctor of their own, this law can effectively put the ability to have an abortion out of reach. And for no clear purpose, unless of course, that was the true intent.
If they come back 3 days later for the abortion then what is the fuss about a waiting period. Obviously, the clock starts ticking when the initial appointment/consultation is made.
Obviously, the clock starts ticking when the initial appointment/consultation is made.
No, that’s the point. You make an appointment. Then on the day of the appointment, you have to meet the doctor in person. He gives you a state-mandated spiel about alternatives to abortion, risks, etc, all of which could easily be done by phone or Skype, but the requirement is that this part be in person. Then, after that, you wait the three days before you come back for the actual procedure.
That is one way to interpret it. The other way is to make sure that the patient makes an informed decision and, in such a serious matter, an informed decision may take time.
You could make the same statement about “second opinions.” (By the way, did “second opinions” start in the medical field?)
The difference would be those aren’t mandated by the state, but by individual doctors. Don’t like your current doctor’s best practices standard? Shop around until you find one who will do what you want, if you can. In this case, the women is prevented from having that choice by the state.
I hate to break it to you, deery (if that is your real name), the state regulates the entire field of medicine (who can be a doctor, how they are licensed, how they are disciplined, how drugs are prescribed, etc.).
Sure, some aspects of the field are probably (I am not sure) self-regulated (in the same way lawyers are self-regulating). But, just as the field of medicine (and the state) probably prohibit elective amputations, the state could easily say that 3 days are required for this procedure. Just because you want to get rid of your pinky toe does not mean that your doctor has to remove it. The state may even (GASP!) take away his license if he performs a medical procedure you would like him to perform.
What I find more odd that this is probably the only medical procedure that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
-Jut
I hate to break it to you, deery (if that is your real name), the state regulates the entire field of medicine (who can be a doctor, how they are licensed, how they are disciplined, how drugs are prescribed, etc.).
Yes. But the regulations have to be rationally tied to the practice of medicine. The state can’t say that if you want chemotherapy, you first must go to a comedy club, because they feel it would cheer you up. Or if you want your hear medication, you first must hop on one leg twenty times at the pharmacy. Waiting periods are often struck down precisely because they are considered unduly burdensome, with very little to no relationship between the mandate and the actual practice of medicine.
Agreed
I don’t disagree with you. And while we’re on the topic of the Great Unwashed, quite frankly they are having too many children and raising them irresponsibly/negligently. I don’t like abortions either and if it didn’t violate the Constitution, I would think that birth control in the water supply would be a fine idea. But not every law should be catered to that demographic. If they are too stupid/unwilling to use birth control than you are foolish if 3 days (or any amount of time) is going to affect their intelligence and cause them to use logic to figure out what’s best for their situation.
You know, I think that this conversation is a symptom. Of two things. one: The general dumbing down of the population to bumper stickers and 160 characters or less. Which is especially criminal when we as a whole have never known so much. And two: That America is absolutely unable to look at problems as a whole, and therefore unable to actually have a constructive conversation on the issue.
The issue that is abortion really shouldn’t be whether or not to allow abortions. That’s almost a red herring. A woman’s body is her choice. She should be allowed to have an abortion. A three day cooling off period isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It IS cheaper for a society to pay for the abortion than the child’s upbringing. But do any of those things really matter? I mean really? Cost. Against life.
I’ll admit, I’m biased towards the fetus. Not because of some misguided believe in a higher power, but because I used to be one. And every now and again, when I’m feeling particularly awesome, I phone my mother and thank her. I’m not sure she knows why, I’m a little odd (I tell her that her hair looks wonderful in the same call, because she makes a point of putting herself together every morning, and I know it’s true.). But I appreciate the life I have. I recommend YouTubing Gianna Jensen or Melissa Ohden, who are saline abortion survivors. It’s heartbreaking. They’re both Christian and proud of it, and it occurs to me that could be a factor of feeling so fundamentally unwanted that their parents were willing to cause her not to exist. Powerful speakers both.
And so I hate the self-congratulatory way pro-choice people treat their ‘victories’. I get it though. It’s probably the single most tragic example of human rights activism. Yes! We as individuals have more rights! But that right is to kill our unborn. Murder it isn’t, but death it is, because absent that abortion, that child would be born, and the bad choices of the parents forever snuff out a lifetime of choices, of potential, and that just hits me as so very wrong.
Because to abort or not to abort really isn’t the question. It’s the question after everything else has failed. It’s the bad solution to a horrible problem that is the series of choices that led to an abortion being preferable to having a child. In a country with birth control, contraceptives and education available at the levels they are in America, it takes a series of cripplingly stupid, immature, narcissistic choices to become pregnant when you don’t want to be. Incest and rapes be damned, they’re a red herring. They’re what abortions are meant for. More black babies are aborted annually in New York City than are born. Period. 56 million babies have been aborted in America. 56 MILLION. It’s insane. We need to educate people, improve access, and otherwise make it so taking the pill or putting on a condom on becomes common sense is more preferable to killing babies.
. In a country with birth control, contraceptives and education available at the levels they are in America, it takes a series of cripplingly stupid, immature, narcissistic choices to become pregnant when you don’t want to be. Incest and rapes be damned, they’re a red herring. They’re what abortions are meant for. More black babies are aborted annually in New York City than are born. Period. 56 million babies have been aborted in America. 56 MILLION. It’s insane. We need to educate people, improve access, and otherwise make it so taking the pill or putting on a condom on becomes common sense is more preferable to killing babies.
*************
Well-written and EXACTLY right.
We need to educate people, improve access, and otherwise make it so taking the pill or putting on a condom on becomes common sense is more preferable to killing babies.
**********
Reading on the Kermit Gosselin story several years ago, there was one young lady who had been given eight abortions by the time she was 21.
Just wrap your mind around that.
I understand that he was a crackpot and that was his reason but what about her?
Did she really not know enough about her body and the procedure to fear it’s effects (she was unable to bear children) or to think that maybe birth control would be an easier (cheaper and healthier) option?
I just couldn’t get over that.
Not to mention, she was paying him for the abortions, she probably could have gotten BC free from Planned Parenthood.
I very much enjoyed your analysis, Jack. But why do you think these comments represent “the upper echelon of public thought on this issue”? Wouldn’t they be the middle echelon?
Non-elite upper echelon? I guess I’m ommitting scholars, the rare thoughtful pundit,the occasional trained expert, ethicists and Ethics Alarms readers from “the public.” What are we talking about, 1%? Less?
WAIT just a minute! (Is that legal?) Jack, are you allowing, about abortion and any law that might impact abortion, that “It’s complicated”?
“…[USA Today][,]… “the newspaper of the average American[,]…contains…mostly bite-size features designed for an audience with an attention span that finds fortune cookies challenging.”
Stop it, Jack, STOP! You’re not only giving me new hernias from making me laugh so hard – you’re talking too precisely about ME!
I’m going to have to wait at least 48 hours before commenting more in this thread. I bet that in the meantime, the campus police will be busily clamping-down the speech codes on discussion of this issue. After all, any insinuation that the fetal organism is the least bit qualified and deserving of consideration as a human being with rights deserving protection by law is pure, full-force misogyny; we could never tolerate the slightest hint of that terrorism in those safe-speech zones of higher learning. (But, we can afford to continue to “insult” and impose undue burdens on the truly voiceless.) Can’t they make fortune cookies more like Pop Tarts?
Fortune pop tarts!!!! A million dollar idea!!
I really don’t like abortion but I don’t like the three day waiting period, either.
We’re supposed to be a free country of rugged individuals and here we are once again allowing the government to place control on our personal lives.
Even the idea reeks of control.
Jack, Jack, rational thought on this topic is so rare on both sides. Full disclosure, I’m one of those “crazy” pro-life folks. The reality is that it is the law and we need rational examination of the factors that sometimes drives a woman to choose abortion. Stigmatizing the need for help only obscures all other options. The three day law doesn’t bother me. I despair when I hear of another case of statutory rape not reported in the name of keeping abortion legal at all costs.
“Abortion isn’t murder, because the laws define it as not murder.” Since when do the legal definitions alter ethical considerations? A fair enough response to the charge of “they should be prosecuted for murder” (no, they shouldn’t, because the laws currently state that it is not murder.) Not so effective against the charge of “Abortion is murder”, unless we’re only considering the term “murder” as simply a legal one. Is there a non-legal term to look at the ethics of ending a life forcefully, unilaterally? Seems kind of hand-wavy to me.
Killing
Exactly WHY is this Big Gub’mint’s bid’ness?
The American Taliban wants a government so small that it fits in the uterus down the street. You either believe that people will make better decisions than their bankrupt Uncle, or you do not.
Every day you delay makes the procedure riskier, and the ISIS bombers of the Religious Right have closed so many clinics with their threats, murders (e.g., Dr. Tiller), burdensome regulations, and intimidation (ask Dr. Warren Hern, who practically lives and works in an armed camp) that many women have to travel hundreds of miles to have the procedure done. Asking them to make that long trip twice imposes a not insubstantial burden on women who are often aborting for financial reasons.
Real harm is being inflicted here.
What legitimate government purpose is being served?
A three-day waiting period is not burdensome.
Not if you have to travel from El Paso to San Antonio or Denver, and stay in a hotel and miss work for those three days.
Again, I ask: What is the legitimate governmental purpose for the waiting period? That it might make Widdle Baby Jesus CWY (I’m not sure Jesus has taken a position) is not the concern of a secular government.
Of course, if you want to own kinship with ISIS, and want to impose your conservative Christian caliphate on the rest of us, step up to the plate and admit it. This is about ethics — not religion — and the government’s moral right to insinuate itself into our lives. Give me an argument for WHY Uncle Sam should have squatter’s rights over the uterus down the street.
I think this is very similar to the three day waiting period for a gun purchase. It keeps people from making spurious decisions. The legitimate government purpose is to force the family to consider the decision, because like it or not, whether abortion is murder or simply killing, there is a life in there, and I think they deserve a little bit of contemplation, if they don’t get anything else in life.
You don’t need to drive hundreds of miles to buy a gun — and stay in a hotel.
What is this, Mongolia? How many abortion-seekers have to drive “hundreds of miles” in Missouri? I remind everyone that I don’t endorse the legislation, but describing it as some kind of horrific attack on women is irresponsible, not to mention ridiculous. This is sounding like the voter ID nonsense, as if anyone without a drivers license will have to trek barefoot through alligator-infested swamps, in the snow, for miles and miles.
Most certainly you can drive hundreds of miles in TX and in other states as well. Abortion clinics are on the decline, and it has nothing to do with demand. But regulations are tough and it is tough to find doctors who will make low salaries with the only benefit being constant fear of violence.
I just hate it when they make abortions so damned hard to get! Life altering decisions should be made lightly with little thought and the state owes us the right to easy convenient disposal of our little mistakes. Why are things so HARD!? Damn. Abortions should be as easy as getting on an Obama care website. Government should make things easier.
(Sarcasm in case it’s not obvious.)
So, it is intended to be a punishment. Thanks for clarifying.
How did you come up with that as my meaning?
Why make them “hard” to get? I thought the point was to have the women “think” about her decision. I’m fine with a 3 day wait period if it can be done over the phone. If not, then it is a penalty meant to deter.
Why wouldn’t it be over the phone? I never assumed it would be anything but.
No, the waiting period begins after the in-person appointment with the doctor Jack.
Why would that have to be the case, though?
Damn! You have to pay for a hotel room to kill your baby?
Horrible!
You really are a leftist loon.
Art should be honored…you are remarkable in keeping your responses measured and non-personal, even in heated and contentious exchanges….one of the best here. This the first time anyone’s made you snap!
The amusing part is that the position is libertarian. Liberals seem to think that the government can control our financial lives and conservatives, our sex lives. Neither position is intellectually consistent.
Again, that’s a misrepresentation if you are talking about those who oppose abortion on ethical rather than moral grounds, and confounding the two is simply misleading, or ignorant. Religious conservatives are governed by moral strictures governing sex—that’s nonsense, in my view, and nor relevant here.
Ethical objections to abortion stem from the need to balance interests: unborn human life, whatever you call it, and whenever it qualifies as such, and the legitimate interest of the mother and society. Libertarians are skilled in arguing that given conduct only is the business of the single individual when in fact many others are sometimes affected, and society as well. You have a right to have sex like a bunny if you can take care of all the kids you produce, give them a stable, loving home and upbringing, and they are not harmed, warped or damages….and neither I nor anyone else have to pay for your irresponsible conduct. Fair enough. How often is THAT the case?
The word “irresponsible” suggests an undisclosed religious bias. Not the right word, imho.
Based on what you have said here, if society has an interest at all, it is in encouraging abortion. If you want kids and are able to have them, and we don’t have to support them, society is good with that … but when your sex life reaches into our collective pocket, not so much.
The legitimate interest of the putative mother? In having the children she wants, when she wants, and no others.
The legitimate interest of the fetus? As a matter of law, none. As a matter of ethics, necessarily subordinate to the rights of the mother.
I’ll give you a real-life example that blasts a massive hole in the use of the word “irresponsible.” Woman A did everything right. Married to her only sex partner, 26 years of age, taking oral contraceptives for years. Couple of yuppies, working on financial stability so that they can do kids right.
A suffers a stroke, caused by the oral contraceptives. Financial effects are devastating. And of course, she can’t take the pills any more.
They have to rely on less reliable methods, and those methods fail. She gets pregnant, and can’t afford to have the child. Abortion becomes the only practical option.
Now, let’s make it worse. Say that she learns that her fetus suffers from Down Syndrome. As the cost of raising a Down child is enormous, both society and the mother have an obvious interest in aborting. Ethically, it’s a no-brainer. (If you are a religious zealot, ymmv.)
Hard to find an ethical objection there.
Art, you are veering into nonsense.
1. “Responsible” has to do with ethics,not religion. If your humble opinion is otherwise, your opinion is confused. Being responsible is a core ethical value We have an obligation to consider the consequences of what we do, and to accept responsibility for them.
2. Society has an interest in encouraging values that will lead to a beneficial, free, happy existence for as many people in that society as possible. One of those values is respect and reverence for life; another is encouraging responsible behavior. It is not respectful of life for people to try to solve problems of their own making by ending the lives (or potential lives) of others. It is not responsible to force others to clean up your messes.
3. “A suffers a stroke, caused by the oral contraceptives. Financial effects are devastating. And of course, she can’t take the pills any more.” Then she has to stop having sex. This is not an impossible or unbearable solution, and if that’s her only remaining responsible course, then that’s the cards she has been dealt. This doesn’t change the responsibility requirement one bit. Sex doesn’t trump everything. Can it be that you can’t see this? If not, what the matter with you?
4. The Downs wrinkle doesn’t change a single thing. No, society does NOT believe in killing those who may require extra assistance by society, nor should it. The disabled and sick who cannot care for themselves are in that group of people who trigger one of government’s undeniable, legitimate responsibilities. If you have sex with a risk of creating a human being, you are responsible for that human being’s life. The possibility of a defect is known, and that risk is accepted by the sex act.
5. You appear not to understand the concept of “ethics.” You are describing ethical dilemmas, where non-ethical considerations, big ones, require ignoring ethical ones. You seem to think choosing the former is still “ethical.” “Pragmatic” and “responsible” are not the same thing.
4) Actually, Jack, here’s where Art and his ISIS bed-buddies that he pretends are actually related to the anti-abortion crowd have another commonality. Islamic ethics trends towards abortions (even late term) when defects are present.
“Then, she has to stop having sex???” Now, you have gone so far into the world of insane religious drivel that you can’t be found with a compass and a road map. To not take advantage of the benefit of technology? You have read Camus, have you not?
I am beyond aghast, my friend.
She would have only two words for you, Jack: “Fuck” and “You!” And imho, she would be entirely justified in showing that Bible so far up your ass that you started spouting the Proverbs.
Yes, this woman is real. And no matter how desperately you try to cover your inherently religious views with the veneer of “ethics,” you have failed miserably. At the end of the day, you are one of the Pharisees Jesus was talking about in Matt. 23. You have no problem laying burdens on others, but one wonders how you would accept them yourself.
To suggest that a married couple should refrain from having sex is so far into ISIS-class daft that I don’t even know where to begin. You might as well start advocating clitorectomies.
This is a core question of ethics. I would not lay a burden on another that I would not lay on myself. Perhaps I should hang out my own shingle and start calling myself an “ethicist.” Wow.
I suppose then you should be equally appalled by suggestions that alcoholics abstain from drinking alcohol?
Art, I fear you are an idiot.
I am an atheist. I don’t belong to any religion, which I think is a nice, moral control mechanism for controlling that conduct of those too lazy, slow or careless to think things through. Your assumption that my potion that sex needs to be responsible stems from fealty to the Bible is a symptom of constricted intellect and so much bias that logic is futile.
Sex causes children. That is its primary function, though the function of recreation is not insignificant. If you can’t use birth control, and can’t afford the kids likely to result if you don’t, then you are irresponsible/ To intentionally use abortion as birth control, creating life and then extinguishing it like squashing a bug, is ethically indefensible. Making other, more responsible people pay for your reckless, selfish conduct is equally outrageous. That includes endless insurance costs passed on to non-reckless whoopifiers in the form of higher premia.
The fact that a couple is married doesn’t give that couple any more right to create children it doesn’t want and has to kill or make everyone esle pay for than two rutting strangers. Ethics is about balancing interests. Again…sex isn’t more important than life. It’s obvious, unless you are as muddled as you are.
WHAT burden are you talking about? You have demonstrated a complete deficit of perspective, knowledge and common sense in this exchange. No question about it: if I didn’t want kids and couldn’t afford them, and could not use birth control as in your (ridiculous) hypothetical (Her partners could use a condom and/or have vasectomy), then of course it would be unethical to keep producing unwanted kids, so I would have to avoid vaginal, heterosexual sex. Yup. No other ethical choice. Getting your rocks off is not the most important thing in the world, and if it will lead to hardship for others and death for some, then alternatives must be found. This really is beyond your comprehension? You’re the one deserving the “wow.”
“The legitimate interest of the fetus? As a matter of law, none. As a matter of ethics, necessarily subordinate to the rights of the mother.” This is rather anti-libertarian of you. The right to not be killed is the most basic right (without it all others are utterly meaningless), and outweighs any other the mother might possess. In the absence of a threat to her own life, as soon as the zygote/embryo/fetus acquires rights abortion is no longer a legitimate option. The dispute then becomes when does it become a person with rights. That is a hugely contentious debate, but ignoring it in favor of prioritizing one individual over another is unethical avoidance of a difficult problem.
Also, as a matter of law, the fetus does have an interest. Anything more than 8 weeks after conception and before birth is a fetus, and current laws strongly protect them as individuals during a large segment of that time.
FALSE!
There is no definitive Libertarian position on Abortion.
Here’s a bit nutty position that takes a semi-pro-life stance based essentially on Geography.
My own *LIBERTARIAN* attitude on Abortion is that, although individuals have every right to do what they will with their OWN selves, they are limited to conduct that DOES NOT affect others. Those on the Pro-Abortion crowd have done little to convince me that the baby inside a mother is not a Human Being. Therefore, innocent, its life ought be protected.
other Libertarian opinions
That “bit nutty” qualifier was on the “evictionist” stance, not on the rejoinder to it.
He goes around bashing rank-and-file pro-lifers, referring to them as the “American Taliban” and “ISIS bombers”.
It is bad propaganda to bash the opposing rank-and-file, for it wouls serve to harden their stances.
Again, you ignore, presumably intentionally, half the problem, which is either lazy, dishonest, ignorant or cowardly. The state has an interets in protecting innocent, helpless, human life, from parents if necessary. Now, the law currently holds that those lives have no rights until the second or third trimester, but that’s arbitrary line-drawing. The position that the line belongs earlier (or later, as some radical ethicist have suggested) are equally defensible. It is no more logical or fair for you to pretend that the separate life called the fetus has no interests (I’d say getting a chance to live is an interest) than for an anti-abortion advocate to deny that giving birth is a serious, life-altering problem for a mother.
Deal with both sides of the equation, or you’re not really analyzing the problem.
I am consciously avoiding that issue to isolate a separate point of ethics. Specifically, as I am sure you know, Augustine asserted that an unjust law is no law at all. Conversely, the Constitution is the supreme law of our land, and we have agreed as a society that I don’t get to pick and choose which laws I am obliged to follow. It is hard to argue that our immigration laws are inviolable but yet, our law concerning the right to an abortion is negotiable.
So, I go back to the question: by what legal authority does the government infringe on a woman’s constitutional right to abort her fetus? Whereas the fetus may have an arguable right to life, a substantially identical argument can be made for the illegal immigrant’s arguable right to live here.
Where do we draw the line and why, if not through the orderly mechanism of the law? Did Scott Roeder have the right to assassinate Dr. Tiller and if not, why not? Did Pfc Bradley Manning have the right to release classified documents to the press and if not, why not?
For good or ill, the right to life only extends to “persons,” and at common law, that status was only bestowed at birth. And one could fairly make an argument that the woman has an absolute right to abort her fetus, but by inaction, she waives that right. However, the State only has the authority we delegated to it, and no more. The State’s action in imposing a waiting period which materially burdens that right is, accordingly, ultra vires as a matter of law, regardless of whether I agree personally with it or not.
So, I ask again: What legitimate government purpose is there for imposing the waiting period? It appears that Michael’s position is religious and thus, he is hampered in his ability to approach the question rationally. But it is a fair question. We were recently treated to the spectacle of Judge Posner, disemboweling the poor sacrificial lambs sent up to defend the silly notion that same-sex couples could not marry. Why wouldn’t the same demand that the government establish a legitimate purpose apply to the waiting period, as well?
“Whereas the fetus may have an arguable right to life, a substantially identical argument can be made for the illegal immigrant’s arguable right to live here.”
Sorry, I fainted when I read this total nonsense and am afraid to read further. That might be the worst analogy I’ve ever read in my life, consistent with neither law not logic. The illegal immigrant’s right to live here is not arguable—he has no such right. He is here illegally, and the US has an undeniable right to enforce its sovereignty and borders. He broke the law to get here, and has no defense to deportation. He is not a citizen. He does, however, have a right to live. That may be the only parallel.
The right of an embryo to live is simply based on respect for human life and the laws protecting it. The embryo has broken no laws. The embryo wants nothing but to finish the coded process of growth in its genes.If the embryo is acknowledged to be an individual, then its right to the protection of the law should not be a matter of debate. If it is an individual with lesser status than its mother, then the exercise of that superiority over the individual still has to be reasonable.None of which has anything to do with illegal immigrants.
You passed over that one a bit fast, I fear.
According to our law, the illegal alien has no right to be here. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And according to our laws, the fetus has no protection under the law. Zip. Zilch. Nada. What is the salient difference, Jack?
The law may be an ass, but it is the law. Whether we like it or not. What we personally think it ought to be is of no relevance.
I’ve had this knock-down, drag-out argument with a liberal friend who is insistent that because we caused the mess in Central America, we have an obligation to fix it. And that–in his view–means opening the borders wide. He makes substantially the same arguments you do. That while our law is clear, we can’t interpret it literally. That although our law grants the illegals no rights (you should hear him whine about the terminology!), we have to respect their (supposed) intrinsic rights as humans.
Not true. Only the mother can kill the fetus. If I do it, I can be charged with murder in a great many states. And there’s no way to send the fetus to Mexico, or back to where it came from. The fetus accumulates the right to exits relentlessly every day that it remains in existance until it finally has rights…to not be aborted, and finally, to live.
Conservative kinship with ISIS?
You know the Islamic world embraces the current American-Left’s opinion of Abortion right?
Please tell me you know that… if you know that, then we can have in intelligent discussion without your logical fallacies. If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t pop off dumb comments without a modicum of research.
any proof?
In general, they look disfavorably on the act of abortion, typically disallowing it after the 1st trimester (with variations as early as 40 days and as late as 120 days). Prior to that, there is a general *ignoring* of it (especially in Sunni schools) leaving it to the parents. If it occurs against the parents wishes during the permissible period – such as result of an assault — it is treated as murder. For deformities it can be permitted late into the pregnancy for the “sake of the unborn”.
This falls neatly in line with the current leftist opinion, does it not?
The leftist leadership believes abortion should be condoned even if the pregnant woman is in labor.
Yes, the extremists.
But by the “reasoning” most Lefties advance for why we shouldn’t consider the unborn as human could easily open the Window for abortions to be as late as age 5 — or hell, maybe into adulthood like the ancient romans, who seemed to consider children disposable property until they became adults…
“What legitimate government purpose is being served?”
Protecting Innocent Human Lives…
Does Jack always verbally berate those he disagrees with? Polite and respectful discourse and the Internet seem to mix like oil and water.
The notion that a couple in that situation has to cease having sex is so daft that to even state the case is to refute it. By Jack’s weird line of argument, if the woman is raped on the way to the gym and conceives, SHE HAS TO BEAR THE CHILD because the fetus is innocent and has a right to live that trumps her right to self-determination. It matters not that she can no longer use oral contraceptives as a first line of defense. In Jack’s World, it is “fetus uber alles.”
Now, let us say that Jack has a 14-year-old daughter. As snowflake babies have an absolute right to live under “Jack’s Rules,” we can grab her on the street and forcibly impregnate her. And no, she can’t abort. The snowflake baby becomes a parasite and Jack’s daughter, a host. And he calls me an “idiot” for having a problem with that?
The problem with “rights” is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at the edge of my nose. And while there was nothing the woman could do about it two centuries ago, it would be folly to not take advantage of technology. That is why I mentioned Camus: If we applied Jack’s “you are responsible for the consequences of your acts” meme consistently, we would let Chris Christie die of the coronary he has earned.
To say that that Jack’s position is unusual for an atheist to stake out is an understatement.
The problem with your position is that as a matter of law, the fetus is not a person.
1) So your argument boils down to your personal recreation, when it directly affects someone else’s life is more important than that someone else’s life. And you say Jack’s ethical values are upside down?
2) Your last line. We’re discussing ethics here, tiger. I’m well away that our current law allows for the killing of unborn babies by defining them away.
“…if the woman is raped on the way to the gym and conceives, SHE HAS TO BEAR THE CHILD because the fetus is innocent and has a right to live that trumps her right to self-determination”
This is so obviously a caricature about Jack’s actual opinions, I’m amazed you haven’t been banned for trolling. Nothing he has said leads to the claim that abortion is not an option in the case of rape. He was talking solely and obviously about consensual sex. The only instance of him mentioning rape was in the context that other than rape, the woman bears some responsibility for it. To read what he wrote and boil it down to that
indicates that you are a troll, or complete fucking moron.
I believe that’s the first time I’ve sworn on this blog. I’m half expecting a “YHBT. YHL. HAND” any moment now…
It might have gotten to me because my stance mirrors his. Early abortion should be legal, for a variety of reasons, but deliberately engaging in risky activity for your own recreation and then demanding that someone else pay the price is in no way an ethical approach. Stepping up and being responsible, to the point of not having sex if nothing else will prevent a conception you don’t want, is ethical. Blatant irresponsibility is not. Note that a woman generally bears no responsibility for being raped (caveats for weird legal definitions of rape such that enthusiastic slightly drunken consent is rape)
And yes, people can choose to not have sex. Biological urges are strong, but giving into them blindly is unethical as well. Pretending otherwise is basically another form of “The heart wants what the heart wants”.
Hnweatherford spelled “judgment” correctly — I agree on the substance though.
I have been addicted to the British spelling of “judgement” since junior high, when a cryptography book suggested it as a diabolical key word because of the less common second spelling. Now I literally have to go back and delete the extra e every time I type the word. This is a confession, Dan. I’ve never told anyone else…
I always put little slashes in my sevens.
But judgment with an “E” is VERY wrong.
Not “wrong”…what are you, Scottish? Just British:
From the Oxford Dictionary site…In British English, the normal spelling in general contexts is judgement. However, the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts, and standard in North American English.
Slashes through 7’s, however, is an affectation…
I’m British/Irish/German
(I thought you were American)
In Canada (and the UK): abridgement, acknowledgement, amoeba, analyse, anaesthesia, arbour, axe, barrelled, behaviour, belabour, brunette, calibre, catalogue, cancelled,
candour, centre, centimetre, cheque, colour, clamour, crystalline, crueller,
crystallize, defence, dialogue, aeon, favour, favourite, fervour, fibre, flavour, fuelled, fulfil, funnelled, gauge, goitre, grey, gruelling, harbour,
honour, humour, jeweller, instalment, imperilled, kilometre, labour, labelled, labour, levelled, licence, litre, louvre, lustre, macabre, manoeuvre, marvellous, matte, medallist, meagre, metre, millimetre, mitre, modelled, mould, moult, moustache, neighbour, paean, paleolithic, panelled/panelling,
parlour, practice (n) practise(v), pummelled, pyjamas, odour, rancour, raquet, reconnoitre, saleable, savour, sceptre, smoulder, sombre, sulphate,
sulphur, tonne, totalled, tranquillize, tumour, traveller, tunnelled, theatre, vice, valour, vapour, vigour, wilful, worshipped, queueing.
It amazes me how much American culture bleeds through, four of those words have red squiggles under them. It’s also neat to see the differences, Americans tend to reject the French and Latin roots of the word in order to spell them closer to how they sound.
Two people separated by a common language.
I’ve always found this article and related ones interesting.
Beth
September 18, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Why make them “hard” to get? I thought the point was to have the women “think” about her decision. I’m fine with a 3 day wait period if it can be done over the phone. If not, then it is a penalty meant to deter.
*****************************************************************
I had a very “hard” experience last year. I had to drive 200 miles 3 different times (the first doctor visit was a consultation to help me make an informed decision because there could be health consequences) to get a completely elective surgery that improved my life and got rid of some excess tissue. No insurance paid for it, no government involvement, no war on women talk, no hand wringing exploiting my previous choices that contributed to the problem. A problem that was a consequence of choices I made. No one wailed that I couldn’t afford that many trips. No one bemoaned the fact that the first trip was completely unnecessary because I had already considered all the pros and cons and I was determined to go ahead with it.
I’m talking about a surgery that did not involve ending potential life.
Shouldn’t we make it at least as “hard” to choose surgery to end life?
The difference is that there wasn’t a statute dictating you to take those steps. It was your choice.
It was my choice because I paid for it. There are very few surgical procedures that don’t require an in person evaluation and a waiting period, if only because it’s difficult to schedule the surgery. The patient’s life is sufficiently important to require extra care be taken and the patient is fully informed and knowledgeable. Abortions are easy to get on the same day because the safety and well being of the two people involved is not the number one concern.
It’s pretty difficult to make a procedure meant to kill one of the people involved into anything but horrifying. Pro abortion people must know this, because they’re never willing to allow people to think deeply about it.